UKIP Subservient To The Politically Correct Lobby – The Councillor Silvester Case



Political correctness is cultural Marxism.   It is designed to censor, inter alia, those thoughts and opinions which threaten, in particular, the socially Marxist, financially globalist, agenda.

Contrary to the membership’s wishes, UKIP’s leadership has turned UKIP into a politically correct organisation which is complicit with the imposed politically correct official view.  There is no principled opposition to PC amongst its leadership although, as we have previously described, the leadership is out of touch with its members on this crucial issue.   The task of Ukip’s leadership is to keep its increasingly outspoken members muzzled.

The latest ‘PC’ entertainment from Ukip arose last week.  This time it centred on Councillor Silvester, who had defected to Ukip from the Tory Party.   The Councillor attributed the recent spell of wet weather on divine retribution from the Almighty for the gay marriage policies of the Government.  The story quickly spread to make national headlines.

In his initial response, the party spokesman performed a feat of mental gymnastics – eager to ensure he could keep his flock on board – and made the following statement:

‘If the media are expecting Ukip to either condemn or condone someone’s personal religious views they will get absolutely no response.’

Ah, what pugnacious bulldog courage from this unnamed representative!   Someone standing up for Christian values, perhaps?   Er, no. It was simply the start of yet another rambling ‘PC’ claim about ‘tolerance’.

‘Whether Jain or Sikh or Buddhist or Sufi or Zoroastrian or Jewish or Muslim or Baptist or Hindu or Catholic or Baha’i or Animist or any other mainstream or minor religion or movement, we are taught as a tolerant society to accept a diversity of ideologies [taught by who?]. ‘

‘Freedom of individual thought and expression is a central tenet of any open-minded and democratic country.  It is quite evident that this is not the party’s belief but the councillor’s own and he is more than entitled to express independent thought despite whether or not other people may deem it standard or correct. That is what makes the United Kingdom such a wonderful, proud, diverse and free country.’

As readers will appreciate, the UK is no longer the wonderful, proud, free country the anonymous spokesman claims.  Almost certainly, moreover, this spokesman does not live in Bethnal Green, Slough, Toxteth or other culturally enriched locations.  Too bad, however, for those amongst the host population who cannot afford to move elsewhere!

To the extent this country still holds vestiges of freedom, this is only so because the nation has been built on Christian values and not, for example, upon any form of medieval barbarism, part of which passes for Ukip’s ‘diversity’.   ‘Diversity’, of course, is appeasement and holds, in this context, that the culture of recent newcomers is at least equal to that of the indigenous host population.


A few days later, Ukip’s initial response was overturned as the ‘PC’ thought police behind the scenes administered a tweak or two.   Councillor Silvester was suspended;  he no longer had the right to state his opinions after all.

Whatever the pros and cons of the Councillor’s views, the Ukip leadership would clearly prefer that the Bible should be banned rather than that anyone should quote from biblical extracts, deemed today to be politically incorrect.   If so, they will be suspended from the party.    The same requirements appear not to exercise the leadership and the ‘PC’ brigade when the Koran is quoted.

Many readers will have noticed how, in the past year, Ukip’s ‘thought police’ have severely repressed those who have voiced politically incorrect opinions.  The hapless victims of those who control Ukip have been ruthlessly purged, suspended or expelled.

As Ukip has grown, so too has its risk to the Westminster elite.  The reality is that, rather as the communist parties of Eastern Europe metamorphosized into social democrat parties, so too has Ukip  metamorphosed into a thoroughly reliable safety-valve party, acceptable to the Wesminster elite, the media and the numerous subtle influences who wield authority behind the scenes.

Nowhere more so is that the case than with immigration.   Unless it is Farage who is opining, the media ruthlessly identifies and then pillories those in Ukip who discuss this topic.   This serves an important purpose:  Ukip is quickly knocked back into the parameters of what is acceptable and within the boundaries of political debate;  dangerous opinions are extirpated.

The question every UKIP supporter needs to ask is this: what will it matter if, after freeing the nation from the EU, the country is deeply divided and ever more sensitive to the strident demands of minority groups, who will soon become the majority?  Is this the legacy you want to leave to your children and grandchildren?




25 thoughts on “UKIP Subservient To The Politically Correct Lobby – The Councillor Silvester Case

  1. UKIP supporters are in the main Tories and therefore have no conception of defending our national integrity. They see the UK’s departure from the EU as an end in itself rather than a means to an end. John Shaw said on another thread it would be easy to convert these UKIP supporters to being supporters of the BDP but I think what I have just written indicates it won’t be because for a great deal of them it WILL be like ‘crossing the rubicon’.

  2. In answer to the question asked at the end. No, most definitely not. One of the biggest problems we face as a party is getting the same degree of publicity and recognition that UKIP have been given in the media. Our goal must surely be to try and make as many electors as possible aware of our existence. Only then, with putting our message across to the electorate will they be able to see that there is another choice for them if they wish to show their disapproval of the Westminster triumvirate. There is a much better party that they can vote for that is genuine and honest and will never let them down. Only one party that will truly free us from the EU and sort out the mess that years of Lib/Lab/Con misgovernment have left us in. The British Democratic Party.

  3. An interesting and accurate article.

    Farage has since made the point that Silvester’s views were expressed when he was in the Tory Party but no one made any fuss.

    Yes, true. These views were permitted but they are not permitted in ukip.

    Furthermore, whenever they are expressed in UKIP, there is a clamp-down by Farage and Crowther. This is to prevent support breaking out amongst the membership. That could take UKIP into a direction that really would be intolerable for the Establishment.

    Farage is PC and an opportunist. He is not in the fight for his people or for free speech; where was he when others were being physically assaulted for standing up for their people?

    Ukip members should either get rid of Farage or get out of the party. Farage is wasting valuable time while the demographic bomb ticks away.

  4. If Councillor Silvester, a Bible-believing Christian, applied to join the BDP, I trust he will be welcomed in, and not shunned.

    I probably do not agree with some of Silvester’s interpretation of Bible prophecy, but I defend his right to express them, and to local newspapers if he is deeply concerned about the systematic destruction of our once brilliant, free, ancient Christian culture – since the 1800s.

    Our decline has been of Biblical speed and depth. We are now trapped in a totalitarian tyranny where good men are taxed and regulated to death, sent to war for essentially foreign interests, hounded and ruined for expressing opinions, casual remarks and silly tweets!

    1. He has a perfect right to express his views but I consider them to be very wrong. I think politics should be secular in Britain and that includes our party too. After all, it would be hypocritical of us to be critical of the adherents of Islam in this country if we followed what some fundamentalist Christians want instead.

        1. I am very glad that is the case because the British (in stark contrast to many Americans) really DON’T view with favour ANY politician (regardless of the party they belong to) bringing religion into politics. As a good example of this, we only have to view what happened when Tony Blair tried to do this by talking about his ‘faith’. His spin doctor (Alistair Campbell) expressly said to him, “Tony, we don’t do God” (meaning the British people don’t like this kind of talk from a politician)

      1. Our clever opponents, as masters of language manipulation, PR and media (which they own and use for indoctrination), have managed to demonize Christian fundamentalists and associate them with Islamic terrorists. Our forefathers going back to 37AD and beyond, were basic (fundamental) Christians, and proud of it.

        Unfortunately, folks think that modern mainstream Church clerics represent true Christianity; they do not. Their doctrines have been heavily polluted and up-ended with Universalist-Marxism.

  5. Does anyone know the extent of internal party democracy in UKIP eg elections for leader, election of MP candidates?This is one way the membership could have an influence on policy.

    Members recently determined the ranking of MEP candidates:however, the people on the list were selected by the UKIP, and more importantly, their short election address was obviously tightly controlled, to prevent candidates promising tighter controls on immigration, or promising to keep out certain groups.

  6. (Party Member) However insincere Ukip are the fact remains that Ukip voters are anti-European, anti-Immigration and prepared to vote for a Party that is not one of the LibLabCon. Sure seems similar to our Party to me.

    I see from the Fife by-election result that even in Scotland Ukip have considerable support and beat the Liberals by a considerable margin.

  7. They lost their deposit along with the Lib Dems. Simply put, UKIP are correctly viewed as the even more nutty wing of the Thatcherite Tories and therefore viewed with derision in Scotland. The Scots ARE NOT great supporters of economic neo-liberalism and want to turn away from it. ANY party explicity promoting that philosophy will NEVER gain considerable support ‘North of the Border’.

  8. Yes John, I agree that many UKIP voters hold similar views to most Brit Dems. But we are not “anti-European”, although we are anti-EU, which is quite a different thing.

  9. (Party Member) Yes John you are right. I had meant to say Anti-European Union. We have many Nationalist party friends within European countries. Despite years of Institutionalised European Unionism our trade is still only 55% with the superstate and 45% with the rest of the world.

    1. Yes, even thinking nationalists sometimes lapse into the error of equating northern European society with the Brussels and Strasbourg Marxist monster, the EU. This propaganda has been relentless for 40 years, headed up by the well funded ‘Bolshevik Brainwashing Corporation’.

      However, their scheming has developed beyond Europe to global Government (led by them of course). The BBC keep referring to ‘The International Community’!!! Sadly, many Ukippers can’t see beyond the hated Brussels.

      1. They also can’t see beyond the fact that there would be little point in taking back political sovereignty from Brussels if our ECONOMIC sovereignty was non-existent. Germany, for instance, could shut-down many car plants in this country overnight if they wanted to due to the fact that BMW and VW own some of what were OUR car companies. Excessive globalisation of our economy doesn’t register with UKIP (Tory Party on steroids) supporters.

  10. Roystonvasey, on the face of it, there is a degree of party democracy in Ukip although Farage stands out as favourite because he has been singled out by the BBC. He therefore has an advantage. Some years ago, the BBC put him on their flagship Question Time programme just before he was elected leader. No one else is known in Ukip unless they have Farage’s nod of approval.

    The MEP selection process was determined by psychometric testing. There are no right and wrong answers in these tests but the purpose was to find sycophants, who will not contradict/upset Farage. Such are his dismal leadership qualities that he regularly loses nearly 50% of his parliamentary intake.

    MEPs were also subjected to clearance from small panels, chosen specially by an inner party sanctum, even consisting of young careerists in their early 20s – interviewing those in their 60s!

    These two methods above removed most principled people.

    However, there was a further element of Kommissars, whose purpose was to ask pressing questions about immigration and ethnicity. These included trick questions, such as: ‘what do you think of Ukip’s policy to ban the burqua?’ Actually, there is no Ukip policy to ban it. Candidates were also told at the end that the interview had ended and further conversation was off the record. When the conversation drifted on to the vile murder of Lee Rigby, the Kommissars were carefully taking notes.

    The special selection panels then decided who went forward. The members had a tiny weighting in terms of their votes at the hustings and were outnumbered by the small selection panels.

    Let it be noted: Ukip is playing a role to suck up protest votes, patriotic support and principled opposition to the EU and immigration. It has been subverted in the same way the National Party was subverted in S Africa in the 70s and 80s. This assumes that it was not deliberately formed in the first place by one or two placemen.

    It was glaringly obvious there would always develop a revolt in the UK so it was and is merely a question of controlling that revolt to make it palatable.

    As for Ukip being against immigration, contrary to what John Shaw says, this is not so. It is only against Eastern EU immigration. See the article in December on this website when Farage told Andrew Brons in the Parliament that Ukip wants immigration and welcomes immigration. Farage has called publicly for the issue of 1/4m work visas.

    1. Bert, thanks for taking the time to shed some light on the matter.

      It’s certainly true that no other Ukip MEP’s (except Nuttall if he is an MEP), have been allowed on Question Time.

    2. Responding to your point that UKIP has been subverted and the inevitability of a revolt that would have to be ‘controlled’. You may well be right. Indeed, arguably the same thing happened to the BNP. If the BDP or any similar future party were to grow and develop to the extent that it posed a threat to the established order, that too would be subject to the same fate. But as Mo effectively said in the comments above, the momentum sometimes reaches a point which is beyond the ability to control it to the desired degree.

      I think there comes a point when a more pragmatic view is in order. No, UKIP is not a ‘nationalist’ party, but it does tick a few important boxes for us along the way and we are in no position to compete with it electorally now or the near future as things stand.

      What UKIP is doing is coalescing the previously divided forces of those who want an EU exit and those who want ‘controlled immigration’ to varying degrees, admittedly, but the driving force of these themes is the politics of identity and sense of nationhood. The other major thing is busting up the electoral domination of LibLabCon. Once people get a taste for voting for other than the Establishment parties, who knows – as Mo so rightly says – where it will end?

  11. Still, it may be that even Farage will not be able to control ‘his’ party. Like a runaway horse, who knows where it will end up. Events have a way of outstripping people’s ability to control them. If it is a ‘safety valve’, someone could be mighty sorry that they ever let it get off the ground.

  12. (Party Member) In reply to Bert above, I have constantly pointed out how insincere Ukip is, particularly on immigration. I was however referring to UKIP VOTERS. They ARE anti-Immigration of all types, as indeed they are TRULY anti-European Union. The gap between Ukip and its supporters is massive, just like the situation with the Conservatives where their members are deserting them in droves due to new policies and indeed legislation that they just do not agree with.

  13. Contributors are reminded that this is a political party web site.

    It’s not a publication service for budding authors to publish their views at the rate of a dozen a day and to dominate the debate by literary force majeure.

    If people wish to have unlimited access to free web publication there are forums for this purpose like the BDF. These pages aim to offer a range of opinion in edible quantities!

  14. Whilst I might share some of the misgivings about UKIP, I think that at the risk of making my views unpopular, it is necessary to look at the bigger picture and the ‘realpolitik’.

    UKIP may well have been heavily promoted and puffed by the MSM especially while the BNP was ‘on the up’ leading to the 2010 Election. It certainly has successfully served as a ‘safety valve’ and neutralised the BNP to some degree although the BNP did a pretty good job of neutralising itself, it has to be said!

    There is a strong perception by UKIP supporters that UKIP would take a stronger line on immigration than the officially stated position and in due course, that is something to be tested and if found wanting, would provide the opportunity for the BDP or similar.
    But let us face facts. The BDP is in no position to compete with UKIP electorally, at the moment so one can either sulk about it and not vote or spoil the ballot paper, or recognise that this is an opportunity, the like of which has never presented itself historically, to truly ‘break the mould’ of LibLabCon domination. It has successfully propelled the EU and Immigration to the top of the agenda. Isn’t that a good thing to happen? It should be supported at the ballot box by nationalists at least until something else comes along that is better.

  15. (Party Member) Our Party is ‘on record’ as wishing to repeal Laws that provide immigrants and ethnic minorities with preferential treatment. This is for various reasons, not least of which is the fact that this type of legislation gives rights to some people over and above everyone else! We believe in equality before the law for British people in Britain and have created a BRITISH FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ACT that will right many wrongs in our Country today. These wrongs are described as Political Correctness and are the product of creeping liberalism in an unholy alliance with cultural Marxists, who also wish to destroy our society.

Leave a Reply